Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Specialized Bicycle Components, Inc. v. 17 No.1-Own

United States District Court, S.D. Florida

August 30, 2017

Specialized Bicycle Components, Inc., Plaintiff,
v.
17 No.1-Own, and others, Defendants. Defendant Number Defendant / Seller ID Amazon Seller ID

          FINAL DEFAULT JUDGMENT AND PERMANENT INJUNCTION

          Robert N. Scola, Jr., United States District Judge.

         This matter is before the Court on the Plaintiff's Motion for Default Judgment (ECF No. 42). The Plaintiff has moved for a default judgment consistent with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55(b)(2). Previously, the Clerk of the Court entered a default under Rule 55(a) (ECF No. 36). “A defendant, by his default, admits the plaintiff's well-pleaded allegations of fact, ” as set forth in the operative complaint. Eagle Hosp. Physicians, LLC v. SRG Consulting, Inc., 561 F.3d 1298, 1307 (11th Cir. 2009). “Even when a default judgment is warranted based on a party's failure to defend, the allegations in the complaint with respect to the amount of damages are not deemed true. The district court must instead conduct an inquiry in order to ascertain the amount of damages with reasonable certainty.” Almeira v. GB House, LLC, No. 14-cv-00045, 2014 WL 1366808, at *1 (M.D. Fla. Apr. 7, 2014) (quoting In re Catt, 368 F.3d 789, 793 (7th Cir. 2004)). An evidentiary hearing on damages is unnecessary as long as “the amount claimed is liquidated or capable of ascertainment from definite figures contained in the documentary evidence or in detailed affidavits.” Dundee Cement Co. v. Howard Pipe & Concrete Prods., Inc., 722 F.2d 1319, 1323 (7th Cir. 1983); see also S.E.C. v. Smyth, 420 F.3d 1225, 1231, 1232 n.13 (11th Cir. 2005).

         The Court has carefully reviewed the Plaintiff's motion, the record, and the relevant legal authorities. Accordingly, it is ordered and adjudged that Plaintiff's Motion for Default Judgment (ECF No. 42) is granted. Judgment is hereby entered in favor of Plaintiff, Specialized Bicycle Components, Inc. [“Plaintiff”), and against Defendants, the Individuals, Partnerships, and Unincorporated Associations identified on Schedule “A” hereto (collectively “Defendants”), on all Counts of the Complaint as follows:

         1. Permanent Injunctive Relief:

         Defendants and their officers, agents, representatives, servants, employees and attorneys, and all persons acting in concert and participation with them are hereby permanently restrained and enjoined from:

a. manufacturing or causing to be manufactured, importing, advertising, or promoting, distributing, selling or offering to sell counterfeit and infringing goods using Plaintiff's trademarks identified in Paragraph 14 of the Complaint and Schedule “B” attached thereto (the “Specialized Marks”);
b. using the Specialized Marks in connection with the sale of any unauthorized goods;
c. using any logo, and/or layout which may be calculated to falsely advertise the services or products of Defendants offered for sale or sold via the Internet based e-commerce stores operating under their seller identification names identified on Schedule “A” hereto (the “Seller IDs”) and/or any other e-commerce store, seller identity, website or business, as being sponsored by, authorized by, endorsed by, or in any way associated with Plaintiff;
d. falsely representing themselves as being connected with Plaintiff, through sponsorship or association;
e. engaging in any act which is likely to falsely cause members of the trade and/or of the purchasing public to believe any goods or services of Defendants offered for sale or sold via the Seller IDs and/or any other e-commerce store, seller identity, website or business, are in any way endorsed by, approved by, and/or associated with Plaintiff;
f. using any reproduction, counterfeit, copy, or colorable imitation of the Specialized Marks in connection with the publicity, promotion, sale, or advertising of any goods sold by Defendants via the Seller IDs and/or any other e-commerce store, seller identity, website or business;
g. affixing, applying, annexing or using in connection with the sale of any goods, a false description or representation, including words or other symbols tending to falsely describe or represent goods offered for sale or sold by Defendants via the Seller IDs and/or any other e-commerce store, seller identity, website or business, as being those of Plaintiff or in any way endorsed by Plaintiff;
h. otherwise unfairly competing with Plaintiff;
i. using the Specialized Marks, or any confusingly similar trademarks, on e-commerce marketplace sites, from use on any webpage (including as the title of any web page), from any advertising links to other websites, from search engines' databases or cache memory, and from any other form of use of such terms which is visible to a computer user or serves to direct computer searches to Internet based e-commerce store website businesses registered by, ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.